This isn't a problem unique to Amazon. Many companies behave in similar ways. They're just not as big or well known as Amazon, and so stories about them don't get into the technology news.

This is a Capitalism problem, not an Amazon problem. It's also about the failure of unions to act in the interests of workers and to adapt their organizing methods to a post-industrial setting. In conversationabout 3 months agofrom social.freedombone.netpermalink

@maiyannah @bob It really depends on the country. But when you have laws that force people to become members of a union, well, yeah, they're going to be corrupt. Unions that don't have a guaranteed income at least have to not be too overtly corrupt in order to sustain said income. Unions also suffer from being even less powerful than governments when it comes to multinational corporations.In conversationabout 3 months agofrom community.highlandarrow.compermalink

@verius @bob In Canada even many of the voluntary ones are more concerned with their personal income than the actual workers and since they force employers to take only employees from their union the voluntary aspect becomes quite questionable. If you work in grocery for anything but mom and pa shops or WalMart for instance, youre probably a member of the mega union that regulates them. And that union is so big and so unavoidable they are corrupt as hell. I think, like instanxes, theres a size above which a union becomes untenable.In conversationabout 3 months agofrom community.highlandarrow.compermalink

That's what we have in Canada. Some companies where the workers are unionized are allowed to hire workers only from the union. Those companies are called "closed shops". It happens especially in public service organizations (municipalities, provincial organizations). The "closed shop" rule is commonly circumvented by hiring independent contractors for long durations.In conversationabout 3 months agofrom webpermalink